“Second, just because I found those quotes at ActivistCash doesn’t change the fact that they are true quotes from top Peta people and supporters.”

so if i copied and pasted quotes from Bush's racist supporters, I'd be representing the opinions and beliefs of the Republican party?

“If I were moving into this neighborhood I would welcome such a warning. This is no different than being warned about a child molester moving into your area, doesn’t mean he will do anything but at least you know hes there and can take precautions.”

and i'm sorry but that's just a terribly cute, ignorant quote. PETA isn't NEARLY as harmful as so many lobbyists loitering around Washington, DC. They couldn't afford to be harmful with their spotlight and presence. They'd lose all of their celebrity endorsements. It's still a business.

Jack

There are too many sweeping attacks in your last comment to try be respond point by point, but one thing that you have said twice now is that the links on the sidebar of this site is that “the underlying premise” of this site is that illegal action is “acceptable and good.” A couple quick corrections:
1. Point to an instance, ever, of me writing on this site in support of direct action or illegal activity. Name ONE.
2. The links are to prisoners. This site deals with many ongoing court cases, and I frequently write about a recurring cast of characters. I can’t think of anything more appropriate to have links to than the sites of those I’m reporting on. Further, linking to a site doesn’t imply support. I also like to general political blogs and organizations that are loosely related to these issues.

No, actually, if you read my post more carefully you would know that I don’t want everybody to blindly think and do like me. What I would prefer in an ideal world is that people would choose to invest much more time into research and thought – to begin to think more critically and independently (particularly *before* they subscribe to a philosophy/belief or take action based on underdeveloped ideas).

I find most people who take up MDA have barely even accomplished the bare minimum of reading (or thought) necessary to even understand the practice of nonviolence and get an idea of its failures and successes in history. If the average Joe forsakes watching Monday Night Football because of events happening around him in the current climate, and he suddenly has some vague idea or receives a tiny glimmer of awareness that something is not right in the world, his brain snaps, and immediately he wants to wield a brick to make sure “something gets done.” And, on the other side of the coin, I find many (not all) of the folks who are most vocal about calling the uninitiated (those new to the fringe) to arms are usually privileged indifferent individuals sitting back, snug as a bug, in a cozy armchair with a pretentious plaque hanging conspicuously on the wall behind them. Take away the brick-wielding neophyte recruits and the smug, narcissistic philosophy-loving leaders, and mostly of what you’ll have left are the incarcerated. I realize I’m generalizing to a certain extent – there are a few exceptions to the rule – but for the most part, there it is in a nutshell. My point? Most of these people do not bother to invest time into properly learning about the nonviolent approach before they either act or selfishly call others to join their war. I don’t want people to do as I do. I want people to research/read both sides of an issue and make choices based on a comprehensive thought process.

If I were to seriously answer any of the three questions you offer, we would need to have a discussion first about what terrorism consists of. And what constitutes nonviolent civil disobedience, which I am sure we disagree on. As well as what makes for a violent act, which I am sure we also disagree on. So I’m sorry I can’t just come to conclusions as simply as you do.

My post was not a rant about illegal tactics. It was specific criticism that your blog does not allow for a discussion on the efficacy and legitimacy behind the various acts of advocacy that the govt. deems terrorism. Therefore your blog is missing a big piece of the picture.

But that is to be expected, because the main point of your blog operates on the underlying premise that MDA is acceptable and good (the links in the sidebar back that up) and forbids anyone to challenge that shaky foundation. Disallowing thinking persons to challenge the shaky foundation of your beliefs upon which your house stands pretty much insures that the rickety structure will continue standing indefinitely, doesn’t it? Sure is convenient anyway. Funny, how the govt/corps that you so oppose operate on that same principle.

Regardless of my opinions, you will do what you will with this blog. I was merely pointing out weaknesses in the foundation. I think there is some merit in creating awareness about the unjust stigma of “terrorism” heaped on those who don’t deserve it (those who adhere to effective and conscientious tactics). I just think that you are missing a big piece of the puzzle, and I find that somewhat irresponsible and disappointing given your high level of capability, intelligence, and influence.

1. Even if you condemn those tactics, are they the same as flying planes into buildings, building WMDs, and sending anthrax through the mail?
2. Even if you condemn those tactics, do you think non-violent civil disobedience is “terrorism”? (Which, under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, it is).
3. Even if you condemn those tactics, do you not think the sweeping use of “terrorism” rhetoric, against both illegal tactics and First Amendment activity, is having a chilling effect on free speech?

If you want to post another rant against illegal tactics, and accuse me of supporting them because I have links to prisoners on my sidebar, please do it someplace else. If you’d like to respond to the questions above and address the content of this site, please do.

Best,
Will

It’s easy to just dismiss anyone who attempts to get to the root of the matter as “missing the point.” I have followed the actions of the Bush administration going back to early in the year 2001 when the Bush admin set up a regulation that his political protesters be cordoned off far away from him and not be allowed to demonstrate anywhere near his royal presence. Even before 9/11 forces were being set into place behind the scenes to curtail citizens from speaking up, making a stand, and most especially from being heard. Many of the people who have suddenly “woken up” these past few years and are now up in arms about their loss of freedoms were patriotically waving US flags and bowing down to Bush back in 2001, 2002, etc. My point is that I have long been aware and informed about the way the “war on terrorism” has been effectively used to muffle those who try to speak the truth. I have only the utmost respect for activists who stand up to the forces that be (in a nonviolent fashion) – and particularly those that have done so from *the beginning*. But that doesn’t mean that every Tom, Dick, or Harriet who claims to be an activist is doing good for the movement. Nor is every action an activist carries out a good and meaningful act just because it is done in the name of that for which they are fighting for, whether it be animals, the environment, etc. Each act must be judged upon its own individual merits. It’s the motivation of people like you, Will, that I actually question. You seem to throw a protective blanket over all activists (good or bad, effective or ineffective) and point fingers at the “system” without giving any in depth thought to the efficacy of the actions overall. The system has long been wrong…but the majority of Americans have been wrong as well. Not only the Americans who could have stood up to the Bush-Industrial complex years ago instead of sitting around watching Monday Night Football or maxing out their credit cards at the local mall. But also culpable are those who decided that a matchstick, pick lock, or brick was the answer to the solutions they seek.

Green is not the new red. If your rhetoric is to be believed, RED IS THE NEW GREEN.

I’ll take my leave after posting this. This blog lacks adequate discussions regarding the distinctions between ends and means, which is an essential part of any issues regarding activism, including the govt’s response, portrayal, and final treatment of various approaches to activism. Instead, this blog is simply a bullheaded, empty crusade against the govt. (activists good, govt bad, arghh!) without any thorough or comprehensive thought processes to back it up. This site is not going to accomplish much except rallying and riling up those who are already ready to take up arms for their underdeveloped ideas. I’m sure General Best’s minions (all 15 of them) are your biggest fans. Taking a look at all the links on this blog in the sidebar, it’s really more than obvious that you strongly support MDA and activists/groups that use such tactics. So you are not being truthful when you say that debates about the efficacy of actions by MDA activists and groups “do not matter.” Apparently they matter much to you, since you seem to be backing up their campaigns, missions, and actions. And anyone who questions these tactics is apparently “missing the point,” right?